I totally agree and unfortunatly we live the generation of lens chart "experts" who troll internet review re-gurgitating the same old twollop, without every understanding why or how to use a particular lens.

More like the age of the arrogant artistic/pro type who doesn't get tech and just tries to disparage those who do.Learn how to expose!!!! Learn how to shoot!!!!

Yeah whatever. Of course nobody who cares about any lens or sensor details knows how to expose or cares to ever bother trying to compose.

Quote

It reminds me of the old mk 24-70L lens....widely slamed by review sites and yet it's in the lens bag of 99% of professionals who shoot Canon. It was the web based amatures who dissed it while most of the pros loved it and were perplexed by the amatures opinion.

It depends what you wanted to do with it and what type of pro you were. Plenty of pros don't shoot anything that needs crispy corners at 24mm FF or care about purple fringing branches against skies. Then again some do. It depends what you wanted/needed out of it.

I also see a ton of pros praising the new version and saying it was well worth the price over their old version.

Don't forget that the new one also has a higher precision AF engine (which most other than landscape pros could surely appreciate at least a little bit) and it's not just sharper across the board but also fights off stuff like longitudinal CA better. If you don't care, don't pay, but enough with the high and mighty act.

Quote

In my opinion many maligned lenses generally outperform their owners!

That's as silly a tired old statement as saying that only the lens matters.

It depends, for super-tele and 70-200 longer lenses it can be nice to have sharp corners wide open.It's not as critical for a wider lens in many cases, I think PZ was a bit off for slamming the 24 1.4 II as being worse than the 24-105 just because it has totally soft edges at 1.4 (nevermind they are much sharper at all shared apertures). That said, at times you might have important stuff off-center and many lenses quickly go bad off-center at f/1.4.

Also don't forget that this lens does a lot more than just offer better edges sharpness. It gets rid of halation which can occur across the frame when shooting say the canon 50 1.4 at 1.4 under bright conditions and when too much light is reflecting off everything in the scene. It can also get tons and tons of nasty purple fringing (and green haze over OOF stuff).

Quote

There are photographers who shoot only lens charts and like twiddling their moustaches....apparently they consider themselves "experts" although they often don't seem to have the matching photos

The funny thing is that so far from what I've seen, 80% of the people who write what you just did end up having nothing but some shots of a few cats in their back yard in their galleries and the amateur twiddler lab techies end up having giant galleries from around the world or big time sporting event, etc.

I totally agree and unfortunatly we live the generation of lens chart "experts" who troll internet review re-gurgitating the same old twollop, without every understanding why or how to use a particular lens. It reminds me of the old mk 24-70L lens....widely slamed by review sites and yet it's in the lens bag of 99% of professionals who shoot Canon. It was the web based amatures who dissed it while most of the pros loved it and were perplexed by the amatures opinion. In my opinion many maligned lenses generally outperform their owners! I wish people would seek perfection in their photography and not their gear!

For a portrait lens, say take a 35mm, I am looking for a lens which when shot wide open, has gentle vignetting and soft corners. Which has good contrast, good colour and sharpness. Not too much contrast or hyper colours. Accurate AF at both MFD and infinity and I need the out of focus rendering to be smooth and unfussy (eg 50L not 50 1.4). I need it small and light and not intimidating to my subject. Close Min focus is ideal but not essential, most portraits are around the 1 metre mark. If I need this lens for landscapes or studio, I expect the vignetting to go and the corners to shapen up and even up across the frame as I stop down.

Very few photographers actually need sharp corners wide open. Unfortunatly, twee lens review sites tell uninformed people that they do. There are photographers who shoot only lens charts and like twiddling their moustaches....apparently they consider themselves "experts" although they often don't seem to have the matching photos

Not to say that you need anything fancy to take really nice photos. You can have fun and take nice shots of certain things with just a simple body and a single cheap lens.

not realistically. shoot an f/2.8 lens and it makes a HUGE zone appear to be in focus and it's not easy at allrealistically I'd call it closer to f/5.6 to be honest terms of how well you can use it, especially if you don't take 10 minutes to rock back and forth to it

not realistically. shoot an f/2.8 lens and it makes a HUGE zone appear to be in focus and it's not easy at allrealistically I'd call it closer to f/5.6 to be honest terms of how well you can use it, especially if you don't take 10 minutes to rock back and forth to it

Set the lens to 5.6 and push the dof button and you don't see a difference in dof and brightness?

It depends what you wanted to do with it and what type of pro you were. Plenty of pros don't shoot anything that needs crispy corners at 24mm FF or care about purple fringing branches against skies. Then again some do. It depends what you wanted/needed out of it.

I also see a ton of pros praising the new version and saying it was well worth the price over their old version.

If you don't care, don't pay, but enough with the high and mighty act.

That's as silly a tired old statement as saying that only the lens matters.

The funny thing is that so far from what I've seen, 80% of the people who write what you just did end up having nothing but some shots of a few cats in their back yard in their galleries and the amateur twiddler lab techies end up having giant galleries from around the world or big time sporting event, etc.

I've not seem much purple fringing with my 24-70L, although I do see a bit from my 85IIL. My 24-70L shows a bit of CA maybe but not that much to be a problem, my 2nd photographer's 24-70L is a tad sharper than mine and is a really nice lens. Yes the new version is an amazing upgrade to the mkI in almost every area, although probably not to my 2nd photographer's copy...hers is stellar. I am waiting for a new one, but I rarely buy new equipment during a wedding season. I like to learn and shake a lens down in my own time and not introduce a risk into a wedding. It's a fantastic piece of kit and the two which i've tried were very impressive. Much like this Zeiss lens I guess.

If you think I have a high and might act then you really don't know me at all.

The lens an important component in a chain of important components and skill sets...and my statement was not silly.

You are welcome to look over my flickr account and professional wedding blog site to see if I fit into your view of your 80% view...I hope not. I'm not hard to find and I have plenty to show! Just google GMC Photographics.

This is an interesting lens for sure and I'm probably not Zeiss' target audience, so my thought and opinions of this lens are largely irrelivant to Zeiss. If we compare Canon's 50L, there is a stark comparison here between two dinstinct markets / buyers. I have no need for manual focus lenses. I have only two in my collection, the TS-e 17L and 45. Both of which, I rarely use. The Canon 50L has probably the best AF, contrast, build quality and flare control of any 50mm lens currently made. It's a very nice piece of engineering which is quite apparent when handling one. But optically, it has some weak spots, particularly with sharpness wide open. It's expensive compared to the consumer and prosumer counterparts. But the feature which seperate it from those other lenses are the features which most working pros desire and need. This Zeiss is a lot more expensive and therefore attracts a different kind of personality. One who views optical performance as the highest priority, before eye watering cost, AF, build and all other considerations. I could buy a new 400mm f2.8 L IS II for the same price of this new 55mm lens...which puts this new lens into perspective!

I. People spend that much on 5Dmk3 + 24-105mm f/4, I guess some studio photographers would spend that much on a top of the line normal lens.

II. The lens would get cheaper in a couple of years, so when Canon upgrades it's 50mm L & 85mm L, it would have to make the lenses competitive with this one. That could have a cascade effect, as in how expensive & good the 85mm f/1.8 upgrade would have to be.

"I could buy a new 400mm f2.8 L IS II for the same price of this new 55mm lens...which puts this new lens into perspective! "

Where can you buy a 400mm 2.8 L mk2 for 3000euros??

Yep, apologies, I got my numbers all wrong. I thought his was retailing at 8K...although I probably could pick up a S/H mkI for close to the retail or this lens. I couls certainly pick up a 135L 50L and 24IIL for the same price!

"I could buy a new 400mm f2.8 L IS II for the same price of this new 55mm lens...which puts this new lens into perspective! "

Where can you buy a 400mm 2.8 L mk2 for 3000euros??

Yep, apologies, I got my numbers all wrong. I thought his was retailing at 8K...although I probably could pick up a S/H mkI for close to the retail or this lens. I couls certainly pick up a 135L 50L and 24IIL for the same price!

The is a 21mm version on the cards and also an 85mm according to this Zeiss rep

I could definitely get on board with a 21mm version, but need to start saving now, I suppose.

Also, I can't believe everyone's shock over the price. It was announced and designed as a no holds barred lens and given what Canon's charging for the superteles (not to mention Leica [35mm & MF], Hasselblad & co.), I don't think it's crazy. From LLoyd's mini review on B&H, it looks like it delivers and is built to be tough as nails.

I don't think so. Canon has really done great lenses for the 85mm range.

>I might be wrong, but I have some hope this would do some good to future upgrades.

There are a lot of Zeiss distagon/planar-lenses out there for ages, rangin from 1000-2500 Euro. There is no impact on canon because they don't compete... manual lenses with perfect optics are another class than AF-lenses, I guess most of em are sold to videomaker.

Photography much like any other hobby has products that vary in quality and pricing. And much like other hobbies, things get exponentially more expensive as you get to the top end. If this lens is in fact optically capable of what Zeiss is claiming, then it is unmatched by anything else on the market. If you look at any other line of products for any activity, the absolute top of the line item will almost always seem outrageously priced unless you happen to want/need what that item can do that all the competing items of that type cannot.

While I agree that it is a large sum of money for a normal lens, the fact that it is able to do something which no other lens can currently do makes it worth the price of admission (for the consumer that needs/wants that level of performance for their work). They could ask 5k for the lens and it would still be justifiable in my book since NO OTHER LENS CAN DO WHAT IT DOES (optically). No, it doesn't have AF or IS. But the guys that are looking at buying this lens aren't necessarily concerned with that. Not that I am an expert on this, but based on the little I do know, both of those features could cause restrictions on obtaining maximum optical quality and aberration control.

Yes, there are plenty of other normal lenses that will get YOUR specific job done for a lot less cheese (and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that). But guess what, that doesn't mean there aren't people out there that can make good use of the optical quality this lens offers.

Everything has it's place. Different strokes for different folks.

I personally own the 50/2 Makro alongside the 50L, and Conurus modded Contax Zeiss 50/1.4. I love all three for their unique characteristics and they all have their place depending on what I am trying to accomplish. Many would say that is a waste of money and I COULD get the job done with just one of them. But hey, if you can afford to have something and it does what you want it to do, why not? No reason to knock people for purchasing something when you don't necessarily share their set of needs/wants.

All of this is neither here nor there anyway. I just want to see what this lens starts yielding once it gets in the hands of consumers as it could be stunning.